Total votes: 106
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Thsxe5RhzVaPcf5bXZFcmvhJ3Mpm7RoQ22dFp8L5MqA/edit?usp=sharing
Here it is!
Forfeit from Con, although Con had some interesting points if he wanted to continue. Unfortunately, he never took the time to attempt to defend them from Pro. Pro was more convincing for me, kudos to him; albeit, he had little competition unfortunately.
This is likely one of the most important subjects of debate known to man. For centuries, no, for millennia, we have all been endlessly debating this one question: "Is Peach or Zelda Hotest? >:DDDDDDD"
It brought me to tears reading this debate. We have transcended to a new realm of intellectualism and human consciousness. Soon, perhaps, we can access time as a 4th dimension.
Just this opening line from Pro: "Peach is hotest becus she has the bigest boobs"
This blows every functioning neuron in my brain, it is in of itself a staple of human engineering and linguistic genius.
Then, however, Con retorts with perhaps the biggest achievement in human history. He plays with the notion that "hotness" is not what we once thought, that it could also mean "temperature"!!!
This is such a foreign concept that it takes years of study from birth to even be able to grasp half of the argument.
Even further, though, he tells us that Peach and Zelda are perhaps, not the two hottest women in the world. What a crazy notion!
After years of study, however, I have come to terms with this.
While it would seem this Kritik has nothing to do with the debate at hand, I can confirm after consulting with Albert Einstein that he 100% agrees that this is perhaps the nail in the coffin for Pro!
Indeed, while both Pro and Con have transcended into different dimensions of abstract reality, I must award this debate to Con.
As mindbogglingly eloquent and rhetorically brilliant the arguments "Forfeited" and "Crud" were, I must unfortunately hand this debate to Pro.
That said, Con, your genius will be forever etched into history.
This argument devolved into an argument over whether a 20% tax is significant for the average poor person.
Pro starts off by saying that the tax would not hurt the poor when trying to purchase junk food, and that even if it did, it would cause healthier eating. They also state that the poor do not eat junk food more than the rich. Pro, I might have bought this point, but Con gave some evidence as to why poor people will be addicted to junk food and pay a larger price for it, hence hurting them economically. You could have given counter-evidence to delink the argument, but all you tried to do was dampen the impact. You said a 20% tax is not significant for a poor person, and that for me was not an intuitive argument. You also said they could work more, but I have a hard time buying the idea that all poor people have a job in the first place, much less are able to get more hours. The links weren't clear and so I must award this argument to Con.
Next, Pro presents an argument that the income tax would decrease as a result of this tax, which becomes his main argument in favor. This was a much more intuitive argument against Con's case, as he spends the whole time refuting the idea of the tax reducing obesity. Con, you need to make sure to directly address Pro's arguments BEFORE the final speeches! I must award this argument to Pro because you did not get to it until final speech, when new arguments are not allowed.
However, Pro: I did not see a clear link between a junk food tax and a decreased income tax. Who is to say the taxes would necessarily decrease at all? Why would it be that particular tax, and not something like the estate tax?
Thus, I must weigh two uncontested arguments: the tax hurting poor people vs. a decrease in income tax.
Neither side gives me a weighing mechanism, so therefore I must go by which argument is most intuitively convincing.
Con could provide me a numerical value of how much poor people would get hurt by the tax: $520 more per year.
Pro could not guarantee me the benefit of a decrease in income tax nor quantify how much that decrease would be.
Thus, I must award this debate to Con.